BHAGWAN PRASAD SHARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the Primary Agricultural Co -operative Credit Societies (for short the Society) in the district of Gorakhpur, a number of vacancies arose for the posts of Secretary in the year 1984. April 12, 1984 was the date fixed for the interview. The persons who were working in the department and have six months experience in the Society, had been required to appear in the interview. The interview letters were issued to the petitioners, vide, Annexure -1 etc. They appeared before the Selection Committee on 12 -4 -1984 along with 300 more candidates. Thirty five persons including the petitioners were selected by the District Administrative Committee which was constituted in pursuance of Rule 25 of the U.P. Primary Agricultural Co -operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Rules, 1976 (for short the Rules) framed under Section 122 -A of the U.P. Co -operative Societies Act, 1965. The Deputy Registrar of the region is the Chairman of that Selection Committee and Additional District Magistrate, Planning, and the District Planning Officer of the district Gorakhpur and a nominee of the Registrar of the Co -operative Societies, U.P. are members. A copy containing the names of the petitioners and other selected candidates has been furnished as Annexure -3 to the petition. The petitioners' names are traceable at serial Nos. 6, 7 and 8 along with other candidates. By the order dated 30 -1 -1985 addressed to the Secretary of the District Administrative Committee, only two names namely Durgesh Singh and Nizamul. Haq were ordered to be appointed out of that list (vide Annexure -2). It was stated in that order that under the Regulations framed under the Rules (i.e. U.P. Primary Agricultural Co -operative Credit Societies Centralised Service Regulations, 1978, for short the Regulations, 1978) the approval was granted only to these persons. In fact there was no specific provision for granting such approval either under Regulations 20 or 21 of the Regulations nor there was any such procedure for approval under Rules. Since the date, the list of select candidates was prepared including the names of the petitioners, they were not given appointment. No valid reasons were indicated as to why they were not being appointed. The petitioners have filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution with the prayer that a writ of mandamus may be issued directing the respondents not to hold any other test, as the same was indicated to be held on 7 -4 -1988, the respondents may be directed to issue a letter of appointment for the post of Secretary in the Society, on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 1 -5 -1984.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners urged that as the petitioners were selected by an Interview Board, in which Deputy Registrar of the Region was Chairman, and in view of Rule 25 of the Rules there could be no justification to ask for any other approval, nor the list so prepared was subject to any approval either under the Rules or under the Regulations. There could be no justification to hold any other test and under the circumstances of the case the respondents may be directed to appoint the petitioners on the post of Secretaries. The respondents have no power to cancel that select list.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties, it appears manifest that as the selection of the petitioners has been made by a Selection Committee' constituted under Rule 25 of the Rules and the Deputy Registrar of the Region was its Chairman, there was no such approval, required for the direct recruitment. Rule 25 of the Rules is set out as follows: